Several messages below this, in "First Impressions of Poser 5" troberg has started an ethical firestorm by using a "cracked" version of Poser 5 to evaluate the product. (He liked it enuf that he subsequently purchased it.) However, the responses he received, made me wonder what the general sense of ethics is in the Poser community. Hence, I have put together the following inquiry. I would appreciate your feedback. What with Enron and WorldCom and Arthur Anderson, there is a lot of talk these days about ethics. To stimulate discussion on how ethics affects us in the 3D graphics community, I have composed the following six scenarios taken from our daily lives and would appreciate your feedback on the ethics of each. 1) You purchased a license for Poser 5. Curious Labs has decided to use machine-dependent activation. There is some concern in the rumor mill that Curious Labs is in fragile financial health. (I am not saying this is true, just that there are rumors.) You plan to purchase a new computer in six months and you want to use Poser 5 on that machine. Is it ethical for you to obtain (for your own use only) a copy of the hacker program that will crack the Poser 5 activation? (I know that this is no longer necessary because CL has backed off their machine-dependent activation scheme. This is a "what if" scenario. And I am not asking is it "legal"; I am asking is it ethical.) 2) Curious Labs is in fragile financial health. (I am not saying this is true; I am saying "what if".) Knowing this and in spite of this, CL releases Poser 5 with a machine-dependent activation scheme that will render Poser unusable on customers' newly-purchased machines if CL goes out of business and cannot find a buyer. Is this ethical? 3) Eovia releases Cararra Studio 2. Early adopters pay an introductory price. (No claims of "lowest price ever" are made.) A few weeks after release, as a participant in an upcoming trade fair, Eovia announces a special reduced price on Cararra Studio 2 (lower than the release price). Is this ethical? If you say "yes", is it still ethical if Eovia knew about the upcoming reduced price before the release of CS2? (I know Curious Labs has taken a lot of heat for doing something very similar with Poser 5, but did you know that Eovia did this same thing with Cararra Studio 2? However, I do not claim that they knew of (had planned) the reduced price before the release of CS2. That part of this scenario is only "what if".) 4) You are not a professional 3D modeler. It is only a hobby for you and you do not sell or give away the models you make. You would like to use Rhino to make your models. But it is more expensive than you can afford. But Rhino has a special student's price that you can afford. But you are not a student. But you have a friend who is a student. You have your friend purchase Rhino at the student price using his student ID card. You pay the Rhino student price to your friend and your friend gives you the copy of Rhino which you register with your name. (Your friend does not keep a copy of Rhino for himself.) Is this ethical? The company has more money than they would if you had not purchased the program; you are not using Rhino to make money. If you think that is unethical, what are your reasons for believing so? 5) Using #4 as the basis, and if you think #4 would be ethical, would it still be ethical if you made models and gave them away for free? 6) You are a student 3D modeler. You do not sell your models. You buy Rhino at the student's price. Then you graduate and start making your living in 3D modeling. You continue using your original student-priced copy of Rhino without paying any more money to the company. Is this ethical? Thanks for your participation.

Interesting message. I did a paper on ethical issues recently. For item (1), anything involving hacking a code would be considered unethical, but if you had already purchased a license for the program and are using it only on one machine (the new computer), and the company will not allow activation again, then you really have no alternative but to resort to "unethical" means to use a program you have already paid for. However, my personal feelings are that a hacker program may cause more grief than its worth (viruses, corrupt code). If the company were to go out of business, I would think they would provide a patch to remove the activation program. (2) If a company knew they were filing bankruptcy in coming months and still released an activation scheme in their program, I would consider this more than unethical, but devious on behalf of the company. (3) I have qualms about Eovia myself. I purchased the original Carrara from MetaCreations then shortly afterward they dropped their entire line of software (including Poser). Eovia provided a patch to version 1.1. Then they came out with Carrara Studio, which I upgraded to thinking this was a completely new program. I found the program still had the same version number (1.1) and was the same program with their company name on the package. I wasted money purchasing the same program again. And version 2.1 doesn't look much different. I still prefer Ray Dream 5.5. So I think what they did with their Carrara Studio 1.1 was borderline unethical. (4) I believe this one to be unethical since you're not a student and you are not entitled to the student discount. I've recently returned back to college and have found more unethical things like students swapping bootleg copies of 3D software (like 3D Studio Max). One of my fellow classmates found out I just purchased Photoshop at student discount and asked for a copy of it. Since I knew her to be big on software swapping, I told her that I didn't share software especially since I purchased it with no help from her; I planned to use it to upgrade (I'm told that student versions can be upgraded to commercial versions); and I don't like the idea of something with my serial number being passed from one person to another especially since I was getting nothing in return. I told her I had a demo version I could give to her on CD instead. Some of the student discounts are not big discounts themselves. Like my Photoshop discount was only about $200 less than the commercial version. The 3D Studio Max discount is much greater ($475 compared to the full price of about $4,000 or whatever it is now). 5) Since I think #4 is unethical, I cannot really respond to this. 6) Once I graduated, and as I stated above, I would plan to either upgrade to the commercial version or purchase it at full price (if the student version was not complete). Since I'd be making big bucks by then, I could afford it. Maybe you'll get more interesting responses from others.

Interesting questions. Tom

Ethics in this community is a funny thing sometimes. I'm sure you'll be told how terrible it is in all of the scenarios your suggest, even as the respondees haul out their Poser-derived models of Harleys and textures for Wonder Woman. We seem to run a bit of a double standard around here sometimes -- for some reason that no one's ever explained to me, it's okay to steal copyrighted or trademarked material if you're giving the results away... but it's not okay to hack the program... or it's not okay to download DAZ's stuff from Kazaa. From an ethics POV, entire sites like Animotions are suspect (and I say that having downloaded quite a bit from it myself); there are several Freestuff items across the web that could technically be seen as stolen intellectual property -- and yet when this is pointed out, the response is something along the lines of "Well, DC doesn't care as long as you don't sell the items." Does that make it better? Apparently, although I've never quite understood the subtlety of distinction that exists between these two scenarios; I just chalk it up to the community having a dirty little secret.

In case anyone is wondering: I have fully licensed (purchased by me) registrations for Poser (1,2,3,4,&5), Ray Dream Studio (several versions), Cararra Studio (1&2), Amapi (I forget which version), Amorphium (1&2?), Painter 3D and Painter 7, Corel Draw (several, but not recently), Bryce (2,3,4,&5), Photoshop (3,4,5,6,&7), Rhino (1&2; purchased when I was a student, but still used now, non-professionally, altho I am no longer a student). I have a ton of shareware: all paid for by me.

Actually, Bit, this raised another intruiging ethical question/scenario: A client contacts you to do some modelling work that's an update to an existing file. Along with the model, they send you the program and a registration number that will allow you to install the needed software to do the job, with the understanding that you'll delete it after the job is completed. Assuming your own ethical standards are such that you actually do, is it proper for the client to do what they did?

atthisstage, no I do not think it is ethical for the client to do this. Here's why: they are risking someone else's property (the software company) by assuming that I will do the ethical thing and delete the program when I'm done. I don't think they have the right to make that assumption and take that risk with someone else's property. Now, if THEY were the developer of the software, then it would be OK for them to take that risk. In any case, if it were me doing the modeling work, I would not "borrow" the program to do the work, because I would have to assume that the person who was "loaning" me the program was the legitimate licensee, and, again, I have no right to make that assumption. The "loaner" might actually be loaning me pirated software.

1. Yes, it's ethical to do so. Certainly my car will still run if Honda goes out of business. And I'll do whatever necessary to get continued use out of what I have paid for. It's not costing ANYONE any money...but it DOES cost me if I don't use the hacker program and my purchased product fails to run on the new PC. 2) I can't make a call on this one. I would say unethical if the company was filing backruptcy but you said in sad financial state...not sure what that means. I don't like schemes much anyway...but a company has a right to use them. 3) Yes, it's ethical. It happens all the time with many other products. PC being the most viable example. And all sorts of products go on sale after I have bought them. And stores (most chain stores) know when things are going on sale...I've had clerks look them up in the calendar and tell me to come back THEN. Prices get reduced all the time. The company has to make decisions for the good of itself. 4) Unethical. I don't care if the company has more money than it would have. If they have priced it out of range of a lot of potential buyers, that's their problem...but lying to get a copy at a lower price is nothing more than cheating and settling one's conscience by saying, "Well, if I hadn't bought it at THIS price, they would be out THAT money!". If it's not selling as good as it should, then the price should (assuming the company needs the moeny) fall anyway. (see item #3 above) 5) Obviously more unethical, so I don't really need to answer. 6) Unethical. I don't know about the license for Rhino, but LightWave, I think, prohibits making money from sales with the student version. I would think that applies whether in school or out. The intent, I believe, was to provide a product at a cheaper price for educational purposes. THEN, if the person wanted to use the program for business purposes, they would be expected to buy it. Interesting questions. We're expecting a tally...LOL.

I had something similar happen to me on a contract job. I was offered a short-term (more or less a temp job) doing some graphics work in CorelDRAW which I still use. They didn't have the software on their computers nor were they licensed for it. They were offering very little in the way of compensation, but required that whoever takes the contract have the program, load it on one of their computers on site, and use it. I flatly refused the position because I told them the terms were unethical and illegal, and the pay should have compensated for the purchase of their own license for CorelDRAW, not the use of mine and my time for such a low wage. The temp service was appalled at my response, but they are all greedy anyway and would stoop to any means to snatch that buck. I have a personal reason for not sharing software because I got burned many years ago. I did the unthinkable and "loaned" someone a copy of a graphics program I had purchased. I was running my own small business in the neighborhood doing flyers, business cards, and other desktop publishing-type media. This "friend" wanted to try out the program and since I had an earlier version that I was going to throw away (it was buggy), I let him try it out. About a week later, I found out he had stolen all my business by outdoing me with his own flyers using MY program. He didn't have my disks, and CD burners weren't around then so I knew he didn't have a copy and he had given back my original. My own stupidity (or being too nice) burned me more than the company who wouldn't have gained anything since this guy had no intention of ever purchasing the software. I saw him a couple of years later and he asked me if I had any software I was willing to share. I told him he stole my clients away from me as well as used software I paid for, and I wasn't about to fall victim to that again. So that's another reason not to share your software. Why give away something you paid a lot of money for so someone else can profit from it?

On all of them, the answer is "maybe". My observation has led me to the conclusion that morality and ethics is mostly a matter of opinion, so i prefer to take the MYOB approach. My copy of P4 is legit, but i don't give a damn where anyone else got theirs from. I have better things to do with my time than play warez-nazi.

Martian Manhunter, there is an interesting quote from a man who was a victim of the Nazis during the Second World War. I won't try to quote it exactly, but the gist is "I didn't speak out when they came for the Jews (and the Communists, and the Trade Unionists, etc.) because I wasn't a Jew (nor a Communist, nor a Trade Unionist, etc.). Then they came for me, but by then, there was no one left to speak out.

Where does "ethics" reside in each case? Using Warez software, even as a "demo" encourages more software to be warezed. This is a bad thing. Borrowing a copy of software from a friend with the intent of purchasing it if you continue to use it may actually help the company concerned, if you do buy it. If you don't buy it after you evaluate your friend's copy, you should delete it from your system. Companies that intentionally screw the buyers wind up with a hot competitor taking their market share. It creates opertunity in the market. Is it ethical to sell a product that you don't think you'll be able to support because you may go out of business? I don't think so, but then the company is never sure what will happen next. I can't imagine someone like CL just closing their doors. They'd probably sell the software code and product rights and there would be a continuation of service. Side note: CL has gotten rid of their registration scheme - thank the gods! Is it right for a company to sell at in "introductory price", then after the initial sales boom further reduce the price? To me it depends on how long the product has been out. If you go to a store and less than a month they reduce the price on a piece of clothing, they'll usually refund the difference if you've got your reciept. I continue to do business at these stores, but not at ones where they don't. Using a friend's student ID to buy a cheaper version of software is iffy to me. The company uses this play to get people involved in learning and using their software. Just because I'm not a "registered" student, doesn't mean I don't want to learn to use it. However, the terms on student purchase usually state it is to be used only by the purchaser, so I'd probably not do it. The company has the right to restrict sales as they feel fit, and I have the responsibility to honor their choices. Free or for sales doesn't really come into play. I'd continue to use the student copy until the net upgrade came out, then I'd get the full version according to the listed upgrade terms at non-student price. This is iffy on ethics, but until I start making money, I won't have it to spend. Now, the final unasked question: does a company treating it's purchasers badly make it right for a purchaser to break the above rules? uh... well, I think so. If I purchase a product that is not as advertised, and the company will not make good on the product or refund my money, screw them. To me they've violated their contract, and I have NO OBLIGATION either morally or ethicly to honor my side of the bargin. They have my money, and I didn't get what I bought. The company becomes fair game until I get what I paid for. If I buy a copy of software at full price that doesn't have all the capabilities as advertised, then I'll use a student ID to get the next upgrade that does. Or I'll "borrow" a friend's copy. However, that company won't get another dime out of me again. I know we do have legal recourse, but organizing a class action suit and seeing it through is almost impossibe (see Microsoft). I feel guilty about the last paragraph. I'd like to be noble and say I just wouldn't buy from them again. However, comanies that get away with that kind of thing will keep on doing it, and others will be screwed. Better that they do go bankrupt and maybe someone with a better ethical sense will buy them. These are all "what if's". I don't have any pirated or illegal software on my machine. No one has made me quite that mad yet (although CL has come damn close).

bitplayer: That is just plain stupid, to relate warez to the Nazis. It is like spitting in the faces of all the victims. The nazis killed millions of people and started WW2. Troberg cracked a software program to take it for an unauthorised test drive. No similarity that I can see. I think you owe the families of the nazis' victims a big apology for that one...

Martian Manhunter, you TOTALLY missed the point of my Nazi reference. You said that "i prefer to take the MYOB approach." My Nazi reference was related to THAT. It really wasn't about the Nazis or the Jews specifically, but about ethical apathy.

Martian, when you're down from the podium, remember that it all has to do with a sense of personal morality within a larger community. You basically said, "Screw everyone else; I have mine. I don't care about anyone else." Ain't that much different from the guy who ignored the folk getting taken away.

Nope. i'm saying i'm not going to try to dictate morality to other people. Everyone has to learn to think for themselves. The religious right has been trying for years to dictate morality to everyone and only in the 50s and 60s, when people began standing up to them did the world see them for what they were. So now it's time to stand up to those who want to decide this question for everyone else. I don't do it myself, but what right do i have to make an ethical decision for someone else and I certainly feel that I have no right to try to tell Troberg not to do something that is perfectly legal where he lives. His best bet would have been to not tell anyone about it.

pdxjims, just one thing that you said that I might like to question: I disagree that not using using warez would discourage the warez community and they would cease making warez. (I'm talking about free warez, not pirated software that is for sale.) I don't think the warez wizards create warez as a community service. I think they do it as an ego thing: "See how smart I am! I am smarter than the guy who invented the protection scheme because I can defeat his protection scheme." Even if no one ever downloaded his cracked program he could still boast that he was the top dawg programmer. I have defeated a couple (simple) schemes myself. It was for software that I had purchased but did not like the protection scheme. I told people I had figured out how to do it, but I did not tell anyone else HOW to do it. But it gave me a lot of technical satisfaction to figure out how to "break into my own house" (so to speak). It was like getting some lock picking equipment and picking the lock on my own house. It felt good.

How about this argument (that I've seen elsewhere on the web): You just got a big client, but you need Lightwave (for example) to finish the "big render". But, you have to go through a lengthy process of getting the software shipped, then installing it, and then getting a machine-specific hardware "dongle". You know you'll only need the program for this client and will probably never use it again. So, what do you do? You order the full version, which will ship in 5-7 business days, and make you 100% legal. You then jump on the Internet and download the cracked version (and all patches) within in an hour. You then install it on your PC's and start work on your client's project. 5-6 days later, the "legal" version arrives... but, by then, you've finished 5 days worth of work! You never install the real one (which may or may not include the latest patches). And what happens if the dongle had broken during shipment? What do you tell your client? "Sorry, we can't do the render, the dongle broke". They'll find someone who can do the render for them. However, if you're ever auditted, you now have the legally-bought version and serial number. ------ As for the argument of using DC characters on websites (such as Animotions): since the time "fan sites" started appearing on the web, most companies have agreed to let people post their own stuff as long it's 1) free and 2) in the "spirit" of the character. (In other words, no "adult" stuff.) This way, the company and its characters get extra publicity. And, if the companies support the free fan sites, they get more publicity for "being nice" to fans! ------ While we're on the subject of ethics: would everyone who has MP3 files on their machine please raise their hand? Where did you get those files? Napster? Uh-huh. And how is an MP3 different from a DAZ Poser file or from a program? There is no difference- they are all copyrighted materials. Yet people will make a huge stink over copying Poser files, yet they're fine with "sharing" MP3 songs.

I think we're talking want versus need. We have the immediate gratification generation here. We want, we should have, don't want to wait for it. And I have zero MP3 files. If I can't afford something, I wait until I have it. And I doubt if the majority of people on this forum have render emergencies. An emergency is a someone bleeding to death and being taken the the hospital in an ambulance. Being unable to render with the fanciest new piece of software is an inconvenience.

Oooh Oooh. I got one! Try this non-hypothetical situation on for size. You purchase software you love to use from a small struggleing company. The software is heavily warezd and the company asks it's users to spot and help shut down the people warezing so they can stay afloat. The concerned community rallies to their cause and helps bust the warez groups. Months later the company announces that they want to release their next upgrade version with a security scheme. The user community balks and the company relents, but asks for users to stay vigilant in fighting warez. You still with me? Good. Then a few months later the company starts a special amnesty registration deal. If you have a 'questionable' ie Warez, version of their product you can register it legitimately at half the price a normal user payed when they purchased their legitimate copies. In effect selling the software to thieves at half the price. Question 1) was it ethical for the company to offer this amnesty to the thieves who had been 'hurting' the company so much in the past? Question 2) was it ethical for the company to put a security scheme into place on their next full version release that causes major problems for some of their legitimate customers after 'pardoning' the above warezers? Question 3) If you found someone warezing the latest version should you report it to said company after they have proven they don't mind coddeling thieves? Enquiring minds wanna know....

Since the other thread is locked, I have to respond to the arguments there here, but they still apply. (BTW: why was the thread locked?) To the member who responded to my assessment about models for sale of 57 Chevys: many of the models and textures you name say "FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE" Immaterial. If I put on a production of, say, Jesus Christ Superstar and dont bother telling MTI, who controls the licencing of performances of the work, they'll shut me down, whether it's for profit or a free-admittance performance. It's still theft. To the member who asked about Martian Manhunter's handle: DC has indeed registered the name as a trademark. It's immaterial whether or not our MM is a green shapeshifter or not. It's still theft. Companies may look the other way when it comes to fan sites, but does that make it okay? Sorry, no. You cannot assume there's tacit agreement. By the strict letter of the law, it's still theft.

Moonbiter; I was waiting for some one to bring that up. For myself I have to be able to look myself in the eye, if I can't, I don't do it. I was the kid that got cought trying to smuggle something I shop lifted back INTO the store. The worst part, they thanked me. I couldn't have felt worse. I never did any thing like that again. I can't use anothers behavior to justify my own. I have to be able to live with myself in a vacum. Two wrongs don't make a right. . or wait is it a left???. . . maybe back up ?? I am so bad with directions. Tonymouse

Companies may look the other way when it comes to fan sites, but does that make it okay? Sorry, no.<< Actually, it does make it OK because the company (who owns the rights to the characters) has no objection.

Actually, it does make it OK because the company (who owns the rights to the characters) has no objection None that you know of, MM. They may just consider it a petty annoyance and not worth the trouble of a complaint. But from a strictly technical POV, they should be asked for permission before you do a thing. I doubt many, if anyone, here has done that.

Hey Bit, I think this is it: "First they came for the Communists, and I didnt speak up, because I wasnt a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didnt speak up, because I wasnt a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didnt speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

Well, if they have any objections, they need only say something I will gladly stop using the name...

GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Reinhold Neibuhr-1926 The lowly Dimensional Being

So its okay to steal until you get caught? Is that what I'm hearing now? Sorry if I'm seeming a little adamant, because frankly in the Grand Scheme of Things, it's all a little meaningless. But when I'm told, "Oh, well, see it's for non-commercial use" or "I'll only use it till they tell me not to", I start to suspect the sense of ethical morality at play here. Just about everyone in the now-locked thread was real quick to slam Tor for what they presumed was warezing, even though in his society it's not seen that way. Nope, it's all terribly black and white, and that's that. But when we raise those grey areas: DAZ selling models of Harleys or MM appropriating a trademarked name... well, then, it's like "Gosh, I'm not doing them any harm." Interesting, I must say.

I can't control nor likely influence what others will do, so I don't worry about it. I do what I do, which is buy my tools. I like knowing there is support from the software companies if I need it, plus I get a nice pretty box, and the fact that a real, registered, unspoiled version runs stable and smooth, whereas a lot of cracks will not. Yes, I have DL'd cracked apps before I wisened up several years ago. Shoot me, I'm not going to lie about it. More of you have DL'd them than will admit. Every software industry person I've ever met have been genuine, good people, who work hard and don't try to screw other people for their own gain. I support that. As for troberg, well, he bought his copy of P5. And that's that.

here's a question. my brother, who is a student at college- poor student thought :o)- go's to the student store to buy me a xmas/b-day gift. since i own an original, legit copy of program "X", he buys me the new version of program "X". since i like mine so much. Since he bought it with his id, his discount, and gave it to me for xmas/b-day, is this ethical? or should i tell him to take it back and hurt his feelings? Cause if it is unethical, then i should return a few program he has gotten me, since i didn't buy them. Just about 95% of everything done in this world today is unethical by some standards. Weather its right or wrong. Oh, by the way, if your using windows, then your using a stolen program.

MindsEyes: Excellent question. Let's take it a bit further and say that you do NOT own a copy of "X". Your brother doesn't know anything about software licenses, he just buys a copy at the bookstore for your Christmas present. When you get it you don't know it was purchased with a student discount. You register it. Is ignorance an ethical defense? I think ethics must involve a conscious act. But the end result is the same as if I had a student friend buy me the copy. Interesting conundrum. (As best as I can recall, the copy of Rhino I got with my student ID & discount was identical to the regular package: there was nothing that identified it as a student license.)

Does anyone have a cracked version of Poser5 I can have...?

Unbelievable.

Could I leave vektor my legit copy in my will? (Should make it available sometime in the next 50 years. Would there be any ethics questions?(before the thread gets locked)

When i die do they have to bury my serial # with me?

Martian Manhunter, Don't sweat it. Cremation will suffice

Vektor, I have a legitimate copy of P5, but was also interested in obtaining a cracked version to protect myself from the machine-dependent activation in case Curious Labs died from terminal stupidity and left me high and dry when I got a new computer. (No longer necessary because the new P5 service release disables the m-d activation code.) What I discovered is that there is not a cracked version of the program itself, but a "master key" program written by a hacker that will defeat the protection scheme that P5 was using. I surely hope that you don't plan to try to obtain such a program with the intent of using P5 without paying for it (you'd still have to get a copy of P5 from somewhere), but this brings up another important ethical issue: is the mere possession of a generic hacker tool unethical? Even if you don't use it? Even if you use it on a program that you purchased the license for? Isn't that like having a master key for every house on the block, but only using it to open up your own house?

"but this brings up another important ethical issue: is the mere possession of a generic hacker tool unethical?" Apparently it's a tough question to even discuss the legal issues of it...check recent court events.

I've noticed a lot of people state that #4 is unethical, but really, I don't think it is depending on the circumstances... It's generally unethical for someone who already knows how to use the program and is experienced with it. I don't see it as unethical for someone gets it that way who wants to learn the program. That's called a student, in my book. And I don't see them as lying, either. Enrolment at a university shouldn't be required to be considered a student. Being in a state of learning a new skill should. I do see it as particularly unethical for them to get it for the particular purpose of doing commercial work with it. Silver: More of you have DL'd them than will admit. Perhaps a better question would be 'How many of you are using ZoneAlarm, and what's your excuse?' atthisstage: I think you're using incorrect terminology. Software piracy is unethical, but it's not stealing. If you went to the grocery store with 20 cents and stole an orange, you'd have an orange and the grocery would have one less orange. You would still have 20 cents, and the grocery store would not have your 20 cents. That's stealing. However, if you had a handy-dandy Star Trek TM transpoholoduplicatifier device that could COPY that orange, and the grocery store still had the orange, but the Transpoholoduplicatifier did require an orange to make another orange copy of, you would not be stealing, because the store is not out an orange and you leave the store in the same condition it was when you entered it. Now, here's where it gets weird... say instead of produce, you walked back to the books and stationery aisle and transpoholoduplicatified a copy of The Two Towers or the latest VC Andrews or Michael Chrichton or Stephen King novel (those see to be the only things in there -- those three authors and whatever the big movie of the moment is). That would not be theft, either. It would be a copyright violation, however. But it would only be a civil liability. If you sold it, however, it would become a criminal activity in many places. If you rented the transpoholoduplicatifier to someone else and they made a copy, it would be their problem, not yours. That's why you can copy from books at Kinko's on the self-serve copiers but they won't do it behind the counter. I've had them try to refuse to make copies of my own artwork because I had a copyright symbol on it, even though I showed them my ID. Tards. As to whether it would be unethical to copy that book, yeah, pretty likely. Would it be unethical to copy that orange? It's perfectly legal. Partly, because such a device hasn't been invented yet. Partly because no one owns the rights to 'oranges' but youer deity of preference, if any. Or perhaps Disney -- after all, they own California and Florida, and that's where oranges come from. Would the existence os such a device be ethical? It would completely change our entire world, stop hunger and greed everywhere and collapse the entire economic system. If it had filters, it would even make it possible to cure diseases, heal scars, and so on. That grocery store would go out of busines in a fortnight if everyone had one. And they wouldn't care, because they wouldn't need money anymore, because they could have all the stuff they wanted, including more money if that floated their boat. And eventually, everyone would be happy. And it would probably, as a result, be the most illegal thing ever invented. Everyone: There's a much better way to get software without paying money for it, and it's ethical and legal and accepted. Get a contract doing some sort of work of this sort. Require the contractee to purchase a licence of the program for you, to remain yours after the time of the contract ends. Most will go along with this, because if you do good work, they don't need to buy that the next time and you'll work well with them because they were so generous. Another sort of roundabout way -- if you buy it for business and use it for business, expense it. Take it off your taxes. You are only supposed to be taxed for your profits not your losses.

dodger, I like your message. However, when they invent that trans-thingy, grocery stores won't go out of business. But instead of selling oranges, they'll RENT them! You gotta have one to make a copy!

Question: if you had a Replicator (aka "transpoholoduplicatifier") and stole an orange to copy, would the copies be "legit"? :P

1. and 2) Curious Labs and any other company in such a situation, would surely provide registered users a way to permanently unlock the software should they go out of business. So the question has no reason to be IMHO. And anyway, it would be unethical. When you purchase a software, you do NOT purchase the SOFTWARE, you purchase a LICENSE of use and the content of the license is very clear about the limits of personal use. If you can not install the software as you are licensed to, then you can not use that software at all. Exactly because you did purchase the license and not the software. 3) Companies can do that. Of course, customers can also be rightly upset by such policies and refuse to purchase further more from that company. So it's not a one-way safe road for companies to do that. They may also lose customers. I would not say that doing that it's unethical. Although it is surely irrespectful. 4)software is licensed ad personam. So it's illegal and it's also unethical by our commonly accepted standards for software. 5) of course it's unethical 6) This CAN be ethical. It all depends on the EULA of the product. If the EULA contains a paragraph that says that the benefit of the student's license cease when the students is not a student anymore, then it's unethical. If the EULA does not say that, and you basically got the same EULA of the commercial product, only at a discount student price, then you can use if fully and ethically until the day you die. On your overall statement that ethical and legal are different. Yes they are, in a big way: legal is objective, and ethical is subjective. But in any society, the laws get always more or less modelled on that given society's ethics. And ethics often "adapt" to existing laws (although in a much longer time that the contrary). So it's a complex relationship between the two. One can not use one and trash the other. They go hand in hand.

this is a pretty wordy thread...I skipped quite a bit of it for lack of time.... First off...that serenity thing.... "I can't control nor likely influence what others will do, so I don't worry about it"...this is a pretty big cop-out IMO....if more people got off their ass and reported people, talked to them, talked to others about ethics and stuff...just perhaps you could influence a few of them...if everyone ignored everything, what the hell kind of mess would we be in ??? Well, you have a pretty good idea already..... Are there any ethics left? Things are so foggy nowadays, and people have been doing iffy illegal things for so long, most people don't even have a clue what ethics even is...let alone honesty, and so forth....its just common everyday the way we do things....on the edge..if no one looks, hey its aok... Just like when we're driving--- speed LIMIT..55mph...but everyone drives 60-70...so it must be ok....but it really isn't. The answers..as according to me: 1. unethical and dishonest...illegal... 2. ethical...if in good faith they believe they can pull out of the financial problems....I think it their business to release the program any way they want. We surely don't need to buy it, and if they do go under, what can you do??? If they know they are going to fold, and release the program secured without no intent to provide a security release...by all means unethical. 3. ethical/unethical..they can price it any way they want...but as one of the first purchasers,I'd be a bit pissed off...but you don't need to buy it next time, do you? Plus...you have the choice to buy right away or wait. You never know do you??? 4. unethical...if you are not a student, you shouldn't have a student copy....plus your friend is a crook too 5. as above 6..again..unethical, unless the license is such that it allows your using it after your student status ceases, or professionally.

bitplayer: you copy one, then keep that copy as a master. Like an MP3, if it's a digital copy it will be perfect up to the max resolution used! Martian Manhunter: depends on whether or not the copy is exact, complete with ethical implications being duplicated? Hmm, what if you did that, then returned the orange (not for money, just to give back). Of course, it would be unethical to duplicate money, because the duplicated money would be counterfeit despite beng exact... but if you used real (original) money to buy gold, and then duplicated that it would be okay, because there's no such concept as duplicate gold. Again, I state that I agree with everyone who says that buying it at a student discount and usuing it is unethical if you are not a student. But I don't agree that Universities and Highschools are the sole arbiters of whether or not someone is a student. Okay, look at it this way -- I could take a course in aromatherapy and get a card from that course that says I'm a student. The school would not be accredited most likely, and I would not be in an 'official' University recognised by the state. Should I be able to get a student discount? I could be taking aromatherapy and homeopathic medicine courses at a real, accreddited University and have an accredited Univerisyt ID. I might well have no reason to need a single piece of software, but I'd be perfectly able to claim a student discount. What's the difference? I could be taking a non-accredited computer course at a private, non-University company focusing on 3D work. Would I be less ethical for claiming a student discount than the person taking homeopathic medicine at some accredited U, when I actually need the software for my learning and the other person doesn't? I could be teaching myself from heaps of books. What's the difference there than a non-accredited course? I could issue myself an ID, even. 'Student Status' may be a legally definable term, but legality and reality do not always coincide, and ethics deals with reality, not legality. Now, as for the 'cop-out' thing... If I catch you using pirated software, I'm going to tell you you shouldn't do that. It's not my job, responsibility, or problem to report you and I'm not going to. If I catch you using my RMP models without purchasing them (and I know you didn't), I'm going to tell you you shouldn't do that. I'm also going to tell you you shouldn't be silly enough to post them in the Renderosity galleries when you haven't paid for them. I'm not going to call in the admins on you unless you do something else to piss me off, like getting in my facer about it, and then, if I do that, it will really just be my way of striking back at you for acting like a prick when you should have said 'sorry' and stopped flaunting your piracy in the face of the pirated. I'm also not going to judge you as a bad person for it, and I may even be your friend. If you doa phenomenally beautiful piece the impresses the shit out of me, I'm going to formally give you a copy of the item on the agreement that you do a few more of them that well and credit me. But I will not feel like I've been stolen from, and I won't act like it. Why? Because 1) I sell some models, and I know there is no way to actually stop someone from getting copies of them or tracking who is supposed to have said copies and 2) I sell models largely to support my habit of giving away free models. If that habit cost me nothing in the way of time and/or effort, everything you see from me in the RMP would be in Free Stuff. I'd probably still sell some things on DAZ, but at that point it would not be for the money, but for the peer status. I pay for the stuff I get because I think the people who I get it from deserve to be paid. I'd like it if everyone thought that way, but they don't. And I also firmly do not see a pirated model that somenoe takes from me as a loss on my part. It's a gain on their part without a corresponding gain on my part, but if they would have paid for it, they probably will when they feel they can, and if they wouldn't have pauid for it anyway, It's a buck I'd have never made anyway. In the end, I still have just as many models, and if the person does really good work with it, they've justified the model's existence better than $12.95 from someone with a gallery ever could. On the other hand, if I found out someone I knew actually stole a physical box copy off the shelf from a software store, I'd have to like them a lot not to make them give it back or turn them in. That's my bottom line.

1. Doesn't the latest P5 patch do away with the worry of machine specific activation? 2. If they were going to go bankrupt in a couple of weeks, wouldn't removing the activation code and re-pressing cds just send them under quicker? They may as well keep as they are and release an unlock code when they push up the daisies. 3. It doesn't break any ethics as such (after all, business is business), it is sure is a bit of a bitch. 4. Circumventing the conditions required to buy student software is fraud, fraud is crime. 5. You shouldn't have it anyway to be able to give away models. 6. By making money using a student licence prohibiting commercial use would be a breach of the EULA, therefore unethical, and possibly criminal. But at the end of the day, ethics are like beauty, they are in the eyes of the beholder.

Circumventing the conditions required to buy student software is fraud, fraud is crime Yes, but the question was specifically not about legality, but ethicalness. Circumventing the conditions required to buy student software to get student software when you're a student and should thus be entitled to it may be illegal, but it's not unethical.

One thing I would like to add: Price gouging is definitely unethical. That's part of why monopolies are illegal, but the FTC doesn't successfully take care of all circumstances.

none of the scenarios are ethical, imo. although, the first one does make some sense. however, over the years i have worked for a couple of very large companies...the last one was a design firm on michigan avenue in chicago. in all truth...software got installed on other machines that it was not registered to. point in fact....we had 4 licenses for photoshop. we had it running on 27 computers. oh, and, lol...i don't have any mp3's either.

I'm generally pretty strait-laced on these piracy ethics questions, but I would point out a few things about #4:

a.) unless the Rhino student discount specifically prohibits the student from reselling it to you at his cost, it's hard to argue that it's even unethical, much less illegal. He's a student, he uses his discount. He has paid for the software and is entitled to dispose of it as he wishes.

b.) I don't see how whether you're going to use the software professionally or not affects the ethics of the sale at all. Do you hurt Rhino in some way by using the product professionally as opposed to using for a hobby? Of course not. On the contrary, your professional use is likely to provide free advertising for Rhino.

c.) You don't ask whether the student discount is an ethical policy in itself. Actually, it's just a disguised version of the sort of kickback pricing that is considered unethical and illegal in some sorts of anti-trust law. (Though not by me.) Yeah, if you look at it from one direction, it's a public-spirited way of putting the software into the hands of students who don't have much money. But if you look at it from the other direction -- just as accurately -- it's a way of getting as much as you can from poor students while charging more well-to-do people a surplus price. I personally have nothing against charging what the market will bear, but don't tell me this is a morally or ethically elevated policy; it isn't.

d.) If there's no way you would pay the full price, Rhino is getting money they wouldn't otherwise have gotten from you. You in turn must do some little favor for the student to secure his participation, so if Rhino's policy really was motivated by a desire to help students, that too has been accomplished (a little).

e.) And in fact, to generalize the argument from c.) companies who set up these discounts don't really care if the students "cheat" because in fact, that's part of their profit-maximizing scheme. If the student doesn't feel like using the discount for himself, it's better for the company if he employs it for someone else who wasn't going to pay the surplus price anyway. Of course, you have to protect the surplus price by only offering so many discount slots; the student can only buy one copy, for instance. Every big company I've ever worked for that offered an employee's discount understood that we employees would broker deals for our family and friends; they understood that by telling our friends or family we had the discount we were in effect running a sale for the company, and an effective one; they just set a numerical limit on how much we could buy so they could maintain an everyday non-sale price as well.

So, the "students only" thing is really just a fiction employed by the company, one of many marketing tools like volume discounts, group discounts, seasonal sales, etc.

If a special discount actually priced the software below cost, that would be something else again. But of course, with software, that possibility doesn't come up -- is indeed laughable.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who goes on and on about how all high prices are theft, blah blah blah; the software business is no bed of roses, some of the best providers don't break even, and I'm always happy to pay the non-pirate price for good programs. (If they're really overpriced, like Photoshop, some competitor will provide nearly all the same functionality at a more reasonable cost; or I will eventually find an Adobe discount that applies to me.) But scooping the student discount price, or your sister's employee discount price, is no more unethical than taking the upgrade discount price. The company has alotted all these price slots in its marketing plan, makes its profit, and no one is harmed.

Everything one buys from a store has shoplifting losses already figured in to the price. So, does that make it OK to shoplift because the losses are already figured in? Hell no!

But the student discount isn't a steal like shop-lifting, it's just a sale price. (If you refuse to pay a weekend sale price, but wait until Monday to pay full-price, you're not "ethical," you're just a sap.) The stores don't WANT to be shoplifted from. They actually DO want the student discounts used by people who won't pay full price, even if those people aren't students. (Granted, they won't admit this, because they don't want people to think about multi-tier pricing and what suckers they are to ever buy in at the top tier.)

The key, again, is the student discount is not below cost; the company offers those discounts for sale, makes a profit on those sales; transacting one of those sales with them hurts them in no way. Not remotely comparable to shoplifting.

I will say this, though: if the student discount contract actually prohibits the student from reselling the product (though few do, anymore, since the courts have made it clear this prohibition is not legal), I do not consider the student a sap or sucker for refusing to resell it. Standing by what you sign your name to is an ethical decision I respect; similarly, I would never forge fake school credentials to my name to obtain a student discount. Although I know no one would be harmed or cheated in any way by this, the habit of misrespresentation or signing lies just to make life a little more convenient is too dangerous to pick up.

Still, I stick with my original point. A student discount is not like a handicap parking spot. There's no moral reason not to let a student broker one to you.